News US Presidential Primaries, 2008

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gokul43201
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on tracking the Democratic and Republican primary results while participants make predictions leading up to the Iowa Caucus. The Democratic race is tight among Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, with polls showing fluctuating leads. Among Republicans, Huckabee's rise has stalled, resulting in a statistical tie with Romney. Participants are encouraged to predict outcomes for both parties, with a scoring system for correct predictions. The conversation also touches on the candidates' public personas, with some expressing dissatisfaction with their responses to personal indulgences, and highlighting the potential impact of independent voters on the Democratic side. As the Iowa Caucus approaches, predictions are made, with many favoring Obama for the Democrats and Huckabee for the Republicans. The discussion reflects a mix of excitement and skepticism about the candidates and the electoral process, emphasizing the importance of upcoming primaries in shaping the nomination landscape.

Who will be the eventual nominee from each party?

  • Total voters
    68
  • Poll closed .
  • #871
The news media (eg: CNN) are still reporting a double-digit (specifically 10%) margin of victory for Hillary, when the correct margin appears to be 9% according to the Pennsylvania Dept. of State website (from 99.44% of precincts).
http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=13&ElectionID=27&OfficeID=1

Even if you look at the numbers reported on CNN they actually give a difference of 9.4% from HC:54.7%, BA:45.3%. But the news media think it's enough to round to 2 significant figures, and can't be bothered to explain how 55-45=9.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #872
Ivan Seeking said:
And many people don't even see anything unethical about it!

It's maddening; it is plainly unethical.

Anyone who has done that should stop by the closest veteran's cemetery and explain to those guys that you just used your vote that they died for to "Keep the Chaos Going" (Rush Limbaugh).

Explain to them, you're just havin' a little fun at their expense, guys! Just a little mischief!

Sickens me.
 
  • #873
jimmysnyder said:
That's an interesting viewpoint. Elected leaders can't be any better than the electorate. And the electorate can't be any better than its worst members. Well, at least it's not elitist, is it? Don't you think it is alienating though? I guess not. After all, the image of liars and hypocrites giving their money and their votes to candidates who are no better than they are is apt.

It's not the entire electorate but it is enough to make a difference. And I can't see how anyone of good conscience could have voted a second time for Bush. So in that case perhaps it was the entire electorate. Maybe the bar is just that low now. I know that for me the ethics issue has become so intolerable that nothing else matters. I could care less about platforms or whether a candidate is liberal or conservative, or what their help care plan might be, I want the person most likely to be honorable, and most importantly, someone who is willing to defend the Constitution, which is their primary job.
 
Last edited:
  • #874
If Rush's supporters truly valued America, the Constitution, and the democratic process, Rush would be off the air tomorrow.
 
  • #875
lisab said:
It's maddening; it is plainly unethical.

Anyone who has done that should stop by the closest veteran's cemetery and explain to those guys that you just used your vote that they died for to "Keep the Chaos Going" (Rush Limbaugh).

Explain to them, you're just havin' a little fun at their expense, guys! Just a little mischief!

Sickens me.

Funny thing is in one state (West Virginia or something?) the idiots who switched to Democrats in order to mess with the system couldn't switch back when the time came form them to vote in their own primaries for Congress.
 
  • #876
Poop-Loops said:
Funny thing is in one state (West Virginia or something?) the idiots who switched to Democrats in order to mess with the system couldn't switch back when the time came form them to vote in their own primaries for Congress.

They didn't have to. They are for McCain.
 
  • #877
No, it was for seats in Congress.
 
  • #878
How many people do you figure actually did this just to mess with the system?
 
  • #879
Ivan Seeking said:
And I can't see how anyone of good conscience could have voted a second time for Bush.
Perhaps they felt, like me, that Bush was the worst person in the entire country for the job but one. It is never easy to see someone else's side of things, but it can be done. Half the troubles in this world are started by people who won't even try. And you can't escape them either, you'll find them in every part of the world.
 
  • #880
I can see your reasoning.

"Kerry isn't REALLY a war hero!" vs. "He used his connections to get out of going to war and is now smearing someone who was actually there..."

"Kerry might start a stupid and pointless war!" vs. "He already did."

Do I really have to go on?
 
  • #881
jimmysnyder said:
It is never easy to see someone else's side of things, but it can be done. Half the troubles in this world are started by people who won't even try. And you can't escape them either, you'll find them in every part of the world.

In particular, there's quite of few of them in the White House right now.
 
  • #882
Poop-Loops said:
I can see your reasoning.
It is never easy to see someone else's side of things, but it can be done.

Poop-Loops said:
"Kerry isn't REALLY a war hero!" vs. "He used his connections to get out of going to war and is now smearing someone who was actually there..."
Can I put you down for McCain?
 
  • #883
Yes, because he's being smeared by... who?
 
  • #884
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2008/4/23/hillarys-kitchen-ad.html

Erbe said:
Pennsylvania dramatized Obama's loss of support among better-educated voters, Catholics, and low-income whites. Perhaps this is due to his refusal to disown his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and his scaldingly anti-American remarks. Perhaps it is due to the senator's inept classifications regarding gun-owning and religious voters while speaking to San Franciscans.
Will he ever get it?

Erbe said:
Clinton has thrown inexcusable and completely befuddling obstacles in her own path, such as her fabrication of landing under fire in Bosnia and her indirect put-down of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. by belittling his civil rights accomplishments compared with those of President Lyndon Johnson.
Not someone we'd want in the White House.

Erbe said:
The one thing both Democrats have going for them—which not even the Times can undo—is the weakness of the Republican opposition. Sen. John McCain's huge economic blunder this week may well cost him the support of fiscal conservatives, the same crowd looking to him to represent their interests in the White House. By proposing huge tax cuts without regard to their impact on an already out-of-control deficit, McCain did more to rip apart the fragile Republican coalition than anything either Obama or Clinton could do. McCain is now the Democratic coalition's biggest booster.
More of the same - "Raise taxes? Nah - we'll charge it."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #885
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2008/4/25/gop-dirty-tricks-dupe-media.html
This week, the North Carolina Republican Party posted a controversial ad on its website that linked the state's two Democratic gubernatorial candidates with Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama. Both North Carolina Democrats have endorsed Obama, but the ad extended their connections to Obama's controversial former pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

. . . .

The critical question here is whether media complicity is stirring up what's being referred to as the swiftboating of Sen. Obama?

. . . .

It would be nice if folks would stick to the issues and whether or not proposed solutions for the nation's problems are credible/viable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #886
Astronuc said:
It would be nice if folks would stick to the issues and whether or not proposed solutions for the nation's problems are credible/viable.
That would be nice, but we aren't going to see it. Clinton has lost the nomination by any metric, but is staying into try to damage Obama. You can be sure that her operatives are digging into every little nook and cranny of his public and private life trying to uncover any little thing that they can blow out of proportion to damage him. By the time of the general election, he will have been thoroughly vetted by the most effective dirt-machine in politics.
 
  • #887
I wouldn't write off Hillary yet. If Obama blows her out in In and NC, then I would expect Obama to be the nominee. But if Hilllary makes a strong showing, there is a credible argument to be made that given his ability to outspend her by 3:1, there is something fundmentally wrong with Obama as a candidate.

Hillary is pulling the blue-collar crowd, Hispanics, older voters, women, and Catholics, which are all critical to the Dems in a general election. She even bit into the young vote in Penn.
 
Last edited:
  • #888
I'd like to see a candidate who addresses the concerns of all people, not specific groups. What bothers me greatly about the current process is that candidates seem to rely heavily on advisers, handlers, pundits, . . . . I want a candidate who understands issues and problems, who had independent thoughts and convictions, and who is willing to do the right thing even when it is unpopular.
 
  • #889
The problem is that what we want to see is not what wins elections.

How many times have I heard Obama compared to other "thinkers" who lost elelction campaigns? Consider that Kerry was made to look bad while running against Bush! Intellectually and probably in every other measurable way, the two aren't even in the same league. It should have been a landslide. The problem is with the electorate, not the candidates.
 
  • #890
David Brooks made what I thought was an interesting observation. He believes that this election is all about demographics. Certain groups go for each candidate, and Brooks argues that we could probably eliminate the campaigns and arrive at the same results. He suggests that many people identify with one of the candidates on some personal level that supercedes issues and politics.

And I have to admit that in a sense this is true for me. When I watch and listen to Obama, I perceive him to be a man who views the world much as I do, and I have never related to a candidate on this level before. But then again we are not far apart in age so this may be significant. But then again, on a practical level I don't know if this works. It's not that issues don't matter, it is that for me one issue matters more than the rest - the restoration of Constitutional law. I see Obama as the best chance for this process to begin. I also want to see someone who is very smart at the helm. Even if I assume that McCain is a great guy, which might be the case, he's not the brightest bulb in the box. Also, he completely lost me when he embraced Bush. That was unforgivable.

Hillary is sneaky, and I despise sneaky people. In some ways she is no better than Bush. But she is extremely smart, and she seems to be genuinely concerned about the Constitution, so I have to take her over McCain if Obama doesn't make it.
 
Last edited:
  • #891
Ivan Seeking said:
I wouldn't write off Hillary yet. If Obama blows her out in In and NC, then I would expect Obama to be the nominee. But if Hilllary makes a strong showing, there is a credible argument to be made that given his ability to outspend her by 3:1, there is something fundmentally wrong with Obama as a candidate.

Hillary is pulling the blue-collar crowd, Hispanics, older voters, women, and Catholics, which are all critical to the Dems in a general election. She even bit into the young vote in Penn.
Indiana has the potential to be a clincher. Obama's expected to win NC, but IN is on the demographic fence. It neighbors IL, so northwest IN will likely have an Obama bias (though Clinton also claims IL as a "home state", one of many for her). On the other hand, IN is in general, Hillary's kind of state, with two-thirds as many African Americans (per capita) as the national average, three-fourths as many college graduates, and a median income about 5% lower than the national median.

Right now, the most influential person in the country is probably John Mellencamp!
 
  • #893
Gokul43201 said:
Obama's interview on Fox News: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/27/barack-obama-on-fox-news_n_98840.html

I think it was a prettttty good interview. Judge for yourselves.

It turned out much better than I expected it would. I though him going on FOX News had a lot of potential to work against him, but he seemed to handle it well. Good for him.

We'll see what happens in the coming weeks. It seems Obama has NC, the question is how much will he win by. Anyone from Indiana want to comment on how they think their state will vote?
 
  • #894
Gokul43201 said:
Indiana has the potential to be a clincher. Obama's expected to win NC, but IN is on the demographic fence. It neighbors IL, so northwest IN will likely have an Obama bias (though Clinton also claims IL as a "home state", one of many for her). On the other hand, IN is in general, Hillary's kind of state, with two-thirds as many African Americans (per capita) as the national average, three-fourths as many college graduates, and a median income about 5% lower than the national median.

Right now, the most influential person in the country is probably John Mellencamp!

I think there's probably more people with multiple home states than there are people who've lived in one state their whole life. Personally, I have four home states in spite of not claiming Alaska (I only lived there a year).

On top of the 'electability' issue is how each candidate will affect key Senate races. Of 11 Senate races likely to be somewhat competitive, Obama does better than Clinton (and presumably would lure more Democratic candidates to the polls) in all 11 of them (even if only slightly better in a few states). Realistically, that might make a difference in only 4 of the contested contests (Maine, Louisiana, Minnesota, and Oregon).

In a couple other states, it turns what might be a close race into a likely Democratic victory (Colorado, Virginia) although I don't really see Warner being defeated in VA even by Gilmore and I sure don't see Udall being beaten by Schaffer in Colorado even if he is still within 3 percentage points. The two are so close to each other in NM that the only way the nominee could make a difference is if Bill Clinton says enough bad things about Richardson to alienate NM voters.
 
  • #895
BobG said:
On top of the 'electability' issue is how each candidate will affect key Senate races. Of 11 Senate races likely to be somewhat competitive, Obama does better than Clinton (and presumably would lure more Democratic candidates to the polls) in all 11 of them (even if only slightly better in a few states). Realistically, that might make a difference in only 4 of the contested contests (Maine, Louisiana, Minnesota, and Oregon).
Howard Dean knows (but won't say) the damage that a Clinton candidacy would wreak on their party. Many Republicans and a lot of Independents hate her on a visceral, almost personal level, and if she were the candidate (by virtue of some back-room deal, because she has absolutely no chance of catching Obama) all the Hill-haters would come out in droves to vote for McCain, and incidentally the other Republican Senate and House candidates on the ballot. Additionally, disenfranchised Obama supporters including many college-age voters, blacks, and highly-educated progressive voters would stay home, handing McCain and the Republicans wins in a year in which the Dems have a chance to make impressive gains.

Dean is no dummy, and he knows that unless the Clinton camp can tar Obama him with some really nasty scandal there is no way that Obama can lose the nomination except through outright rebellion amongst the super-delegates. The problem with that scenario is that many of the super-delegates are standing for re-election this year and the last thing they want is a massive turn-out-the-Republican-vote movement that would inevitably develop should Clinton be the nominee. Fairness to party faithful, primary voters, caucus attendees, etc aside, the super-delegates need a presidential candidate that will invigorate the Democratic base NOT the Republican base. In their own self-interest, they will dump Clinton and embrace Obama.
 
  • #896
John Dickerson, you write in Slate.com the following: "Someone should call a priest or the National Enquirer. Hillary Clinton is now come back from the dead four times. Her win in the Pennsylvania primary wasn't just a numerical victory. It also gave her a new justification for her long shot effort to win back a nomination that was once considered a lock for her.

"Despite her victory, Clinton's chances of catching Obama among pledged delegates have disappeared. Unless Obama's caught giving all of his campaign cash to Tony Rezko, she's not going to win future contests by a big enough margin to tie him. She narrowed Obama's lead among the popular vote, but not by much. But she won something more important: a new story to tell the superdelegates who are still trying to decide which candidate to back. ...

"The only way candidate--Clinton can actually reverse the tide is if she can convince those superdelegates that the Pennsylvania victory proved Barack Obama is fundamentally flawed. That is more than an academic exercise. She needs to equip them with a set of arguments so strong that they can weather the violent uproar that will erupt in the base if superdelegates put her over the top." [continued]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24338217/page/6/
 
  • #897
Obama has 1490 delegates and 238 superdelegates. There are 294 undecided suprerdelegates and Edwards has 18. If these people want the save their party, they should all declare for Obama. That would give him 2040, and the primary season is over.

Clinton has 1334 delegates and 262 superdeletages. If Edwards' delegates and all the undecided superdelegates declare for her, she would have 1908 and the primary season goes on.

The undecided superdelegates themselves are the real cause of the pain in the Democratic party. They have the numbers to put an end to this, but they don't want to just yet.
 
  • #898
I don't understand why Obama is winning when the decision is supposed to come down to the super delegates, and Hillary has more super delegates. I know there is a lot going over my head, I don't think I really know how this works.
 
  • #899
W3pcq said:
I don't understand why Obama is winning when the decision is supposed to come down to the super delegates, and Hillary has more super delegates. I know there is a lot going over my head, I don't think I really know how this works.
A lot of super-delegates pledged to Clinton early when she seemingly was the unbeatable candidate. Since then, Obama has siphoned off some, and she has gained none of his (at least the last time I looked). Obama is ahead in pledged delegates, states won, and popular vote. Clinton likes to say that she is ahead in the popular vote (though the Dems aren't set up to pick candidates on that basis), but the only way she can make that case is she claims all the votes from the Michigan primary (in which Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot) and the votes from Florida, in which Clinton claimed not to have campaigned because when she visited on primary day, she attended only events open to the party faithful, not to the general public. She is a serial liar and we don't need another of those in the WH.
 
  • #900
W3pcq said:
I don't understand why Obama is winning when the decision is supposed to come down to the super delegates, and Hillary has more super delegates. I know there is a lot going over my head, I don't think I really know how this works.
For Hillary to win, the remaining supers need to rally behind her like never before. She will likely need over 75% of the remaining supers to go for her, the losing candidate. Keep in mind that when most of the early supers announced their endorsement for her, she was all but the presumptive nominee, and with all that (and the Clinton political machine pulling all its got), she's only got a 4% lead among he supers.

In fact, if anything, it is the supers that will now hand Obama a victory more than anything else. Of the last 26 supers to announce endorsements, 15 went for Obama.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • Poll Poll
News (Multiple Answer) Presidential Hypothetical Poll
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
News Is Hillary's Third Place Finish in Iowa a Sign of Trouble for Her Campaign?
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
10K
  • Poll Poll
News Who will win the Republican nomination?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
7K
News What were the top issues in the 2008 presidential election?
  • · Replies 82 ·
3
Replies
82
Views
20K
News What Are the Consequences of the Debt Deal for the US Economy?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
News New Hampshire voters worried about U.S. image
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
News So, who will win the 2008 election?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
News Justice Department Drops Voter Intimidation Case
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • Poll Poll
News What Will the Voter Turnout Be in the Upcoming US Presidential Election?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
News Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence
  • · Replies 133 ·
5
Replies
133
Views
27K